Posted on Feb 2, 2016
Iran Warns US: We Have Even More Embarrassing Footage of Your Captured Sailors
4.53K
17
10
3
3
0
So glad our President trust them...
Iran Warns US: We Have Even More Embarrassing Footage of Your Captured Sailors
Posted from cnsnews.com
Iran
Navy
Threat
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
President Reagan signed nuke reduction deals with the Soviet Union. You do those types of deals with adversaries, not allies. And just as Reagan liked to quote the Russian proverb "trust, but verify" this nuke deal with Iran doesn't rely on trust, but verification.
As to the filming of the US sailors, after the way the US was exposed for our treatment of prisoners in Iraq, we have absolutely lost any moral high ground to complain about prisoner treatment. Particularly something as relatively minor as those videos. The Bush administrations decisions about torture have stained the honor of our country for decades to come.
As to the filming of the US sailors, after the way the US was exposed for our treatment of prisoners in Iraq, we have absolutely lost any moral high ground to complain about prisoner treatment. Particularly something as relatively minor as those videos. The Bush administrations decisions about torture have stained the honor of our country for decades to come.
(2)
(0)
A1C (Join to see)
Agree with you, but the deal in place with Iran does not allow any verification. So it is just TRUST US.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
A1C (Join to see) - i believe you are mistaken on the verification provisions in the deal.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
LTC (Join to see) - Your beliefs and reality may be out of sync. I chose carefully through several citations to find one which you might accept without complaint. I'm guessing that the NY Times is to your taste...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/middleeast/provision-in-iran-accord-is-challenged-by-some-nuclear-experts.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/middleeast/provision-in-iran-accord-is-challenged-by-some-nuclear-experts.html?_r=0
Verification Process in Iran Deal Is Questioned by Some Experts
Some experts have expressed skepticism over a provision in the nuclear accord that gives Iran 24 days to grant inspectors access to suspicious sites.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - there are many articles published that detail the verification processes in the agreement including the 24 day inspection requirements. While some experts like the article you cited express concerns, they also use qualified expressions like "might" and "may" to hedge their assessments. But what they don't mention is the fact that the plan accounts for even that low probability by using intel assests to monitor the sites after notification where any attempt to. clear out a facility would be obvious.
And of course that only applies to the military sites and ignores all the verification going on at the main nuclear sites. So while some experts may have various opinions on that one particular aspect ( and as I mentioned there are many of the worlds foremost experts who are comfortable with it) my response was to the statement that "the plan in place does not allow any verification" and that is clearly false.
And of course that only applies to the military sites and ignores all the verification going on at the main nuclear sites. So while some experts may have various opinions on that one particular aspect ( and as I mentioned there are many of the worlds foremost experts who are comfortable with it) my response was to the statement that "the plan in place does not allow any verification" and that is clearly false.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Three consistent points:
1. We don't know even half of the "real" story, and probably never will.
2. The only alternatives for the crew, regardless of how they got there, likely would've begun with disobeying direct or standing orders.
3. Comparisons of one nation's response vs. another is irrelevant-If we are going to deploy forces to the region with orders to surrender, avoid conflict at all cost, etc...then there is simply no point in having them there.
There will always be, and must be, a dominant power in the global context. They once said, "Rule Britannia"...now, it should be "Pax Americana", with the same general effect.
1. We don't know even half of the "real" story, and probably never will.
2. The only alternatives for the crew, regardless of how they got there, likely would've begun with disobeying direct or standing orders.
3. Comparisons of one nation's response vs. another is irrelevant-If we are going to deploy forces to the region with orders to surrender, avoid conflict at all cost, etc...then there is simply no point in having them there.
There will always be, and must be, a dominant power in the global context. They once said, "Rule Britannia"...now, it should be "Pax Americana", with the same general effect.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
@Robert Adams Let them show it. They've saturated the media with these stories so much that they're loosing their audience.
(1)
(0)
A1C (Join to see)
I have to agree with Ex-Navy SEAL Congressmen Ryan Zinke. None of this ever added up to begin with.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google